Hi! On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 17:26, tom.seabury at nhs.net wrote: > My simple reading of this is that what are currently trees would instead be > expressed as a sparsely populated arrays ? is that the point?
Just to clarify it is has not already been clarified enough by others: Everything that is currently a tree in openEHR archetypes would most likely remain a tree. What would change is that the rarely used class ITEM_TABLE would no longer be needed. The data in an ITEM_TABLE already today is represented as a cluster internally. So, no, what are currently trees won't become sparsely populated arrays. Hope that helps. Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 P.s. to Tom: those PAINFULLY_LONG_CLASSNAME_SUGGESTIONS were only intended to make a point, not as a final suggestion. openEHR probably does not need to change anything as long as the potential confusion is well described in specifications and presentations. (See the post http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-clinical/msg01353.html for details again.) If CEN/ISO still have problems with the names after such an explanation then one could assume that they will be the ones suggesting better alternatives. --- warning, irony below this line --- I remember the infection around the word "ontology" at a SemanticMining event where it became the "o-word" :-) Perhaps the OBSERVATION will meet the same fate? O-ENTRY? And EVALUATION -> E-ENTRY?
